The daily herald. [volume] (Honolulu, Hawaiian Islands) 1886-1887, 1887-03-25
SUPREME COURT.
AT CHAMBERS.

on the 9Th inst.
The petitioner by his attorney, Mr..
Katsura, applied to me for writ of
mandamus, setting forth that on the
roth February 1887 the petitioner
sued out from the respondent who was
Deputy District Justice, District Of Ha-
makua, Hawaii, a summons against
one W. II. Purvis Of Kukuihaele, Ia.
makua, Hawaii, the master of said
petitioner under written labor con
tract, to cancel said contract on the
ground Of breach thereof, also pray
ing for costs, etc.
Both parties were summoned by the
said respondent to appear before him
on the r4th February, 1887, and they
duly appeared, and the said respondent
refused and declined to hear the case
and forfeited the costs deposited by petit
toner The petition prayed the Court
to issue writ of mandamus to show
cause why the said trial should not be
held.
This Court issued writ on the
9Th Of March commanding the said
respondent to hear the case without
delay or show cause why he should
not, within ten days after service of the
writ upon him.
On the 2Gst of March an answer
came from respondent admitting that
he issued a summons on the 10th Feb.
ruary, 1887, against w. II. Purvis on
the suit Of Nakamura Munataro to
cancel the labor contract between them,
and the respondent sat on the r4th OF
February as Deputy District Justice Of
Hamakua to hear the case. rhe petit
toner claimed that he was servant
bound to serve W. H. Puryis the de
PENDANT under a labor contract, and
alleged that the contract was broken
by defendant and the law of masters
and servants violated, and asked the
Court to annul the contract and to
award damages and costs to respond
ent in accordance with section I424 OIL
the Civil Code.
Counsel for the defendant, ]. X,
Kaunamano and L. Paakiki, urged
that the I423 section Of the Civil Code
was repealed by an act Of the Legisla-
ture approved on the 18th July, 1874
also that this is civil case and the
amount Of damages are not laid in the
complaint; also that Nakamura Muna
taro had brought suit against hi
master w. II. Puryis before J. p. Miau
: District Justice of Hamakua, to canoe
the contract on the ground that hi
master owed him, but the District Jus
tice had not decided the case
The answer further says that re
spondent decided not to hear the case
, because he was Of opinion that as tn,
r Act of 18th July, 1874, repealed "al
!, laws and parts Of laws inconsistent
, herewith it repealed the I,4aS Sec
p ton of the Civil Code, and the Cour
has now no jurisdiction to try cases 70
D. infringement of contracts between mas
4. tiers and servants. Also that as tn,
e District Justice had entertained tn,
y case OF the plaintiff against the defend
Z ant, and decided against him in part
e and held the case as regards the sui
r for SIS wages, the respondent decided
. the case in favor of the defendant, ant
r ordered him to pay costs, So SO.
d The petitioner demurS to the answer
!. and AYERS that the Act Of 1874 referee
4 to in the answer only regulated tn
general jurisdiction of District Justice
with regard to civil cases founded OIL
pecuniary demands, and has nothing I,
do with the relations between master
IS and servants, over which the DistriC
e Justices have by law jurisdiction cor
n ferred upon them. Also, that a pend
Il ing suit for wages between the sam
parties in the same Court is no ba
3 to an action to cancel the contract,
o BY the Court 1t is to be regrette
a. that the respondent has not appeare
e by counsel, or in person, but relic
, upon his answer. | find from the state
ment of petitioners counsel that J,
! Miau, the District Justice, declined t
1t allow the uniting of the two actions
d one for wages, and one to cancel tn
= contract-and that is all that was don
s. by him. but that the Deputy Justic,
Ie A. w. Haailio, who acted in the al
lie sence of Mr., Miau, heard the points
le defendant, Puryis' counsel, and merel
X declined to try the case.
St 1t IS very strange that any misappr'
: hension should exist in the mind {
ut the Deputy District Justice in regar
b to his jurisdiction, By Section r,4a
i'll of the Civil Code, jurisdiction is COZ
RS ferred upon the Police and Distri'
is Justices, whenever a master shall !
~ guilty of any cruelty misusage, {
violation of the terms OF the contraC
'p towards any person bound to service
etc, to examine INTO, hear and dete
mine the complaint, etc, and if Il
)e complaint is sustained, to discharge tt
e. laborer from all obligations of service